If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Though I haven't played Shogun 2, I've played all Total War games prior to Empire Total War. I can say that they don't compare at all to Civilization V because they have a totally different focus. the total war games mostly focus on battlefield strategy with the addition of admittedly pretty nice campaign maps. The campaign maps, although allowing some government management and construction strategizing, mainly serve as a field for tactical military deployment, once again fitting in with the theme of military strategy. I think both Civilization and the Total War games are good, albeit for totally different reasons. The battle parts of total war are also more akin to real-time strategy rather than turn-based.

In terms of which is more polished, Shogun 2 or Civ V, I've heard different opinions on that. I think both are still in the process of being worked on with patches, but I might be wrong about that.

They simply play differently. Short story is that CIV5 still feels unfinished for me , its fun , has great potential but still needs lots and lots of work. Shogun 2 feels very polished, finished..its very very good but I really dont know what they could add to make it great.

Even on the highest detail graphic levels . Shogun 2 has 52 FPS for me, civ 5 from time to time feels sluggish at games end.. Graphic is amazing , small films for ninja etc actions when you kill for example somebody. Battles look epic. The only Problem I have with shogun 2 its too hectic for me. I love beer and bretzel.

I love Shogun 2. It's polished, feels finished, and for the first time ever Creative Assembly aren't abandoning it for the next TW game! My only problem with it is that it's quite restrictive. With, say, Empire, Napoleon or Medieval, you can explore the world basically, and there are many places to conquer, no true ways to win (they are much akin to EU3). With Shogun 2 there is only one way to win: become Shogun. There are different ways to get there, true, but because I'm not as familiar with Japanese clans during the Sengoku Jidai, it doesn't feel like to me that I'm rewriting history.

That's where civ comes in. Civ 5 is fun, but unlike Shogun 2 it feels somewhat unpolished and a little lacking (maybe it's the bit in me that wants to see real-time battles and TW like movement on the map). It's still fairly fun though, and now that fun friend's rig is finally getting a sorely needed upgrade, I think I might try MP with him. It's fun playing with him, but Hotseat does take a while.

Which is "better" is really not a fair question. You are quite literally comparing apples to oranges.

In Shogun 2 there is a static campaign map upon which all games are played. The setting is already built in for you, the cities are there, the resources are there, and the opponents are all, already there. Nothing changes from game to game, which is quite unlike the entire civilization franchise.

In Shogun 2 units are actually collections of individual men, quite unlike the abstract concept that we have in Civilization. Battles play out in real time on battle maps, nothing like the combat of civilization.

Granted, there are some things that I like about Shogun 2 more than I like in Civ 5. Trade and trade routes is probably the best one, but also diplomatic options with allies and vassals are much more interesting in Shogun (TW generally) than they are in Civ.

So which is better? Well I play both. I like them both. I think Shogun 2 is my favorite right now, but it remains to be seen what Civ 5 might be able to do in the future that Shogun can't even compete with.

I'm not convinced that the Steam statistics mean anything. More people have civ 5 than Shogun 2, which means more people are going to play it. That's about all that means to me.

I agree that shogun is a really good game and I also agree that they are very different and its not a good comparison.

But to say that shogun is SO MUCH better than civ 5 is, well wrong. IMO.

And I disagree with you about the steam stats,I thank its a very good tool to help you pick out a game.the reason more people play civ is because more people enjoy playing it,they both had demos.

Lets look at the steam stats for a sec.Ok, do I want to buy Homefront or brink,They both had things that people didnt like about them.well HF has 918 and brink has 612.that's pretty close really but IMO HF is a little better than brink.Brinks a good game but I got tired of it very quickly.HF is a good game and I didn't get tired of it near as fast.neither one of them are great game's IMO and that all shows in the steam stats.

They are decent game's,people are playing them, but they're not great games, and there isn't as many playing them as there are some of the more popular games,BC2,Cod.and you can't say many didnt buy either of them,they were both at the top of the steam list when they first came out.

and only 588 plays Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword so civ4 is 1000 time worse game than civ5?

Keep in mind that Shogun 2 and Civ V require steam while Civ IV does not. Any game that does not require steam will have lower ratings simply because some people do not like using Steam.

I do agree that using steam numbers isn't the best metric to judge how good a game was, only how successful it was (which as far as developers are concerned is probably all that matters). You could make a very mediocre Call of Duty game, and it would still sell more copies than even the most perfect version of Civ ever conceived. We should be happy that there's so many developers still making these types of games, instead of all jumping on the bandwagon and making console shooters using modern era weapons.

and only 588 plays Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword so civ4 is 1000 time worse game than civ5?

Civ 4 sold 3 million copies prior to it ever hitting steam, all you are seeing is the version sold by steam, it's impossible to tell how many are playing Civ 4, though I would imagine more are playing Civ 4 multiplayer than Civ 5 multiplayer.

talking about the great wall , good example what is wrong with civ 5. You would expect that threw effect of the great wall is negated when you research dynamite and not when the owner discovers it (i still think this wonder owerpowered), you would expect that your population goes into rebellion if they hunger, bad consequences if you can't pay your bills, trade is important especially foreign trade and navies are important to protect your trade routes, being a loyal friend helps your standing with your partners, breaking contacts makes negotiations more difficult.you would assume that divining a battle real time with virtually thousands of highdetailed troops be motte difficult than synchronise a turn based games, than you assumed wrong, all these things work with shogun 2 last but not least you can use your dlc online even if the other player doesn't have the same dlc......i like civ 5 but shogun is more logical, intuitive how certain things should work and simply the technical performance is wow compared to meeeh civ 5.

Business success doesn't mean that it is good game, there is 77 negative opinion from users add zero negative opinion form journalist? CIV5 under other brand wont be so popular, only "CIVILIZATION" name build sells result.

this is what you shouldnt do with a franchise? sell nine million copies and score 9.0? thats pretty impressive if you ask me. i only hope tor does as well as that when we release it!

You mean, from reviewers?

Yes, gamers will usually have a very biased view (either the game's great or crap), but the fact that there are more bad reviews from gamers than there are good reviews doesn't really show that people are liking the game.

@ JoeIsBad

When a game has a larger fanbase in general it's probably going to sell more, and there will therefore be more people playing it rather than the less well known, but less played game. Most of my friends play Black Ops or Modern Warfare 2, does that mean that the games I play are bad, just because I'm the only one in my group that plays them? Does that mean that either of those games are good?

Also, what everyone has to remember is past experiences with the franchise as well. Civ 5 came off what was thought of as the best game ever in the series, so you're quite likely to get huge numbers buying without checking customer (or journalist) reviews. Shogun 2's come from the bad publicity of Empire and Napoleon, so it's done fairly well.